Monday, February 20, 2017

The Dire Cost of Europe’s Multiculturalism: Sacrificing a continent on the altar of utopian ideals

The extent to which the multiculturalist European Union (EU) elites
will go to suppress free speech in the interest of promoting
non-European immigration is astonishing and alarming. It means that
Middle Eastern Arabs and South Asian Muslims are immune from prosecution
and deportations, despite committing rapes on native European children
and adult women. When a sane voice is raised, as in the case of
Netherlands Geert Wilders, it is penalized.
If elections were
to be held now (General elections are scheduled for March 15, 2017) in
the Netherlands, Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders might very well win a
majority in the Dutch parliament and might be elected as Prime
Minister. Opinion polls notwithstanding, Wilders had to endure a trial
in Amsterdam for allegedly inciting hatred and racial discrimination.
The Dutch court found Wilders “guilty” of inciting discrimination
against Dutch Moroccans that according to The Guardian (December 9, 2016) “is expected to intensify the debate about migration in the Netherlands.”
Geert Wilders was “guilty” of asking at a 2014 Freedom Party rally whether the crowd wanted “fewer
or more Moroccans in the Netherlands.” Wilders called the trial a
“politically motivated travesty.” Wilders was neither fined nor given
prison time by the judges. What the trial does however show, is the
stifling of free speech in the EU countries, and in this case, the
Netherlands, particularly, when it does not comply with the elites of
the EU cherished ideals of multiculturalism and its advocacy of free
immigration.
Soeren Kern, in a Gatestone Institute article, quoted a high-ranking official in Frankfurt, Germany as reported by German newspaper Bild, “There are strict instructions from the top not
to report sexual offenses committed by (immigrant) refugees. It is
extraordinary that certain offenses are deliberately not being reported
and the information is being classified as confidential.”
Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London and a leading voice for Brexit, argued (Economist
June18-24 issue) that “Napoleon, Hitler, and other various people tried
this out (forcefully unifying Europe-JP), and it ended tragically. The
EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.” One of those
coercive methods has been to limit, if not forbid, anti-immigration
speech.
The elitist of the EU have seen a rise in nativist
protest movements throughout the European continent. The voiceless
people of the states of the European Union have been forced to adopt
multiculturalism and political correctness as their new civil religion,
and their dissenting voices are now being squashed by a series of
measures that amount to the curtailment of free speech.
The
European Commission, a powerful and unelected EU’s executive branch,
announced last year plans to combat “illegal online hate speech.” The
same European Commission unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure
that online platforms do not offer opportunities for “illegal online
hate speech to spread virally.” Unsurprisingly, it is the European
Commission that will determine what constitutes “illegal online hate
speech” and not the people’s elected representatives in the individual
European countries that make up the EU.
A press release headline issued by the European Commission (EC) in
Brussels on May 31, 2016, read “The European Commission and IT companies
announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech,”
The EC explanatory paragraphs read: “In order to prevent the spread of
illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national
laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and
xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as
the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalizing
hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal
law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this
work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal
hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries
and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an
appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a
notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately
substantiated.”
These provisions of the EC against hate speech
have done little to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism in the EU
countries, nor has it criminalized the anti-Semitic nature of the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which singles out the
Jewish state. It does, however, seek to stifle the anti-immigrant
movement, which is trying to alert Europeans of the coming Islamization
of Europe. In addition, the EC decision will adversely impact on the
civil liberties of over 500 million Europeans.
The net
impact of recent “speech” laws enacted by European governments has been
magnified by private censorship on anti-immigrants speech. For example,
most news organizations have stopped showing images of Mohammad,
although no such self-censorship has been made regarding caricatures of
other religious figures. In September, 2012, French actress and animal
rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined several times for comments she
made about how Muslims are undermining French culture. In Britain, a
15-year old girl was arrested for “burning a Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook.”
While Germany is on its way to committing demographic and cultural
suicide with the admission of millions of Middle Eastern and African
migrants, Sweden is already there. The people of Sweden are allowing
its radical leftist governing parties and its equally pandering press to
expedite their national demise. The Gatestone Institute
reported (December 22, 2014) that before the scheduled March, 2015
elections, the current Social-Democrat and Greens party coalition
government enacted “a measure far less publicized, that came into
effect that Christmas (2014). The measure was designed to make it easier to prosecute those who offend immigrants, immigration policies, LGBT people and politicians online.”
According to Gatestone “even
immigrants themselves do not seem to be allowed to challenge
immigration policy or immigrant culture. Last year a Somali-born female
journalist, critical of immigrant culture, was intimidated to such an
extent by the Swedish journalistic establishment that she decided
Mogadishu (Somalia) was a safer place for her than Sweden.”
Only in Sweden does the government take out loans to make welfare
payments to migrant Muslim gang-rapists. While the government and its
compliant leftist press blew out of proportion an attack on migrants, it
had been silent on the rapes by mainly Arab and African Muslim migrants
on Swedish women. The U.K. Daily Mail reported (March 4th,
2016) that “What is worrying is that if the Stockholm Station story has
been blown out of proportion, it could have artificially fueled
pro-migrant sentiment and made ordinary Swedes less ready to voice their
worries about mass migration. Fears of a cover-up have been fueled by an investigation published by a flourishing online Swedish news outlet Nyherer Idag,
showing that Swedish authorities hid from the public sexual assaults by
immigrant gangs on scores of teenage girls at a popular Stockholm music
festival booth last year and in 2014.”
Needless to say that
in the EU states, anti-immigrant voices are stifled by archaic laws that
are undemocratic to say the least. Europe’s EU bureaucrats are
moreover suppressing free speech in the interest of promoting disastrous
immigration policies. Europe has traded Christianity and pride in its
civilizational accomplishment for the falsehood and insanity of
multiculturalism. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265852/dire-cost-europes-multiculturalism-joseph-puder